[Dev-flock] for/against arguments
Lucy R Mendel
lmendel at MIT.EDU
Sun Oct 7 18:45:07 EDT 2007
We've had some informal discussion about marking arguments as for or
against the behavior. This would be marked by the author. In terms of
evaluations we thought to allow evaluators to mark why an argument
got a thumbs up or thumbs down. eg, not objective, faulty logic, false
premiss, irrelevant, biased source. For now, users have to write
responding arguments to a thread to say the why, but then they can only
write arguments in that particular thread.
The why is useful in three ways: 1. to the argument writer to understand
their thumb up/thumb downs, which effects status points; 2. to other
readers of the argument trying to make votes based on th arguments; 3.
analytics. If 1. is important we can allow evaluators to write comments
that are only readable by the argument's writer (this prevents people from
getting around the one argument per thread by writing comments everywhere
else). If 2. is important-- well shoot; write a responding argument! get
involved in that thread! (but what if they already wrote an argument
elsewhere? well if it's a good argument it'll be The Thread that gets read
anyway.) If 3. is important we might was to make actual checkboxes for the
why's to make accumulating this data easier.. instead of grepping comments
for 'bias' 'source' etc.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:22:40 +0000
From: Mike Eggar <eggar at hotmail.com>
To: lmendel at MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [Dev-flock] r255 - in huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main: .
media templates views
thanks for clearing that up for me. The "for/against" thing I can put in, but
there's nothing in the database yet to store it I dont think. I'll add the
for/against selection, although I think parsing the argument for
profanity/praise might be more accurate.
Mike
> From: Lucy R Mendel <lmendel at MIT.EDU>
> To: Mike Eggar <eggar at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Dev-flock] r255 - in huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main: .
> media templates views
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:06:18 -0400 (EDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu ([18.7.7.80]) by
> bay0-mc3-f9.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Fri, 5
> Oct 2007 21:06:20 -0700
> Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103])by
> biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id l9646JxC021206for
> <eggar at hotmail.com>; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from all-night-tool.mit.edu (ALL-NIGHT-TOOL.MIT.EDU
> [18.7.18.66])(authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as
> lmendel at ATHENA.MIT.EDU)by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id
> l9646I2n018095(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
> verify=NOT)for <eggar at hotmail.com>; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: (from lmendel at localhost) by all-night-tool.mit.edu
> (8.12.9.20060308)id l9646INK007858; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:06:18 -0400 (EDT)
> X-Message-Info:
> JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Z3TmmkSEdPt3Mi6GgUSv7yYKHQgGfDe+2wCW4LegkYQqypIHu4uP4o=
> References: <BAY142-F408E5ACD4A633B5B761BE5B9AA0 at phx.gbl>
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Spam-Score: 0.00
> Return-Path: lmendel at MIT.EDU
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2007 04:06:20.0952 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[40A8C980:01C807CE]
>
> only behaviors are rated (assigned a vote 1-9)... though maybe the api
> permits arguments to be rated eventually. a user can choose to either rate a
> product OR write an argument. a user can write many arguments, but only on
> one thread. users can only vote once. users can allocate a feather to take a
> second action, eg voting after writing an argument or writing arguments on a
> different thread. a thread is started by attaching an argument to a behavior.
> arguments attached to that first argument (and subsequent arguments in that
> discussion) form the thread.
>
> nothing should be anonymous. i think auth/auth is working in Prototype,
> though it's not used there except on a test page.
>
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Mike Eggar wrote:
>
>> thanks,
>> also, got some questions about rating behaviors:
>> do you have to post a new argument to add a rating, or can you just rate the
>> argument,
>> do you have to be logged in to rate it or is anon rating ok,
>> and can a user rate it more than once
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>> From: Lucy R Mendel <lmendel at mit.edu>
>>> To: Mike Eggar <eggar at thoughtandmemory.org>
>>> CC: dev-flock at mit.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Dev-flock] r255 - in huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main: .
>>> media templates views
>>> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
>>>
>>> word.
>>>
>>> I'll have a look at the save() issue.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Mike Eggar wrote:
>>>
>>> > added 'add argument' link to each behavior, opens a form, submitting the
>>> form creates a new argument in views.add_new_argument_to_behavior
>>> >
>>> > save() still isnt working, not sure if its a permissions problem or bug
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Modified:
>>> > huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main/media/main.js
>>> > huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main/media/stylesheet.css
>>> > huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main/templates/main.html
>>> > huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main/urls.py
>>> > huginmunin/trunk/web/src/web_app/Main/views/views.py
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Dev-flock mailing list
>>> > Dev-flock at mit.edu
>>> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dev-flock
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev-flock mailing list
>>> Dev-flock at mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dev-flock
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Spiderman 3 Spin to Win! Your chance to win $50,000 & many other great
>> prizes! Play now! http://spiderman3.msn.com
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Capture the missing critters! Play Search Queries and earn great prizes.
http://club.live.com/search_queries.aspx?icid=sq_hotmailtextlink1_oct
More information about the Dev-flock
mailing list